Who is afraid of free press?

The Nigerian public, not just the media, have good reasons to be wary and collectively reject the media regulation bills now in the National Assembly, Abuja.

Under the cover of tackling fake news and hate speech, the proposed amendments to the Nigerian Press Council (NPC) and National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) Acts readily shackle press freedom, hound critics of government policies and the public’s right to be heard. It is evident that Nigeria is heading back to the obnoxious military era of the 1980s.

The civilian toga of the sponsors or their self-acclaimed conversion to democratic norms should deceive no one. The bills are capable of forcing our democracy into darkness. And lest history begins to repeat itself, the National Assembly should, for once, stand for the people, defend civil rule by quashing the obnoxious amendments and shame enemies of democracy.
 
Barely two decades into the Fourth Republic, a number of its beneficiaries and occupants of public offices are already cheesed off by its liberal ideals that allow scrutiny of public conducts and demand for accountability. Unmindful of its abysmal leadership, the current administration is looking in the opposite direction to punish complainants and victims of its poor leadership. A subtle entry point has been the issue of fake news and hates speech, through which the lawmakers are now trying to push through parliament a bill for the amendment of the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) and Nigerian Press Council (NPC) Acts.  
 
Indeed, the vexatious proposals predated the Buhari administration. But as currently lined-up, it is a blast from the obnoxious past of the military junta. In 1984, the same Buhari as a military head of state, passed the Protection Against False Accusation Decree, otherwise called Decree No.4, to repress the media. Under it, some journalists were jailed for reports perceived to have put the government in a bad light. But while Decree No.4 was only restricted to the disclosure of sources of information, the Press Council Bill is more draconian – walking on a brink where even the military feared to tread. The bill includes provisions that would require Nigerians to obtain a licence before operating press organisations, allow the government to jail journalists, fine newspapers up to N10 million or close them for up to a year over a publication that the government interprets as “fake” news.

Though both the executive and legislative arms of government have tried to deny the obvious attempts to gag the media, “the Fourth Power” of democracy, there are sufficient reasons to think otherwise and a reason the Buhari administration should be worried about its image. 
 
The Cybercrimes Act is an example of how lethal a supposed good control measure could become in the hands of despots. Sections 24 and 38 of the Act have been used in no fewer than 10 instances to clamp down on bloggers or journalists for expressing an opposing opinion to politically or economically powerful elite. Amnesty International has actually documented 50 cases where the law had targeted, not cybercrime suspects but bloggers and journalists for writing on what they “know to be false, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, ill will or needless anxiety to another.” Again, the heavy-handed restrictions on broadcast media and Twitter are indications of how intolerant the government has become. These anti-democratic credentials have not failed to jolt global attention. Last year, Nigeria actually fell five places to 120th out of 180 in a ranking of press freedom compiled by a global watchdog organisation, Re­porters Without Borders.
 
It is also important to state that the media, both old and its new counterparts, are neither the enemy of the state nor of the government to warrant a clampdown. To the media belongs a constitutional role as the “Fourth Estate of the Realm” in a democracy. Section 22 of the 1999 Constitution as amended guarantees that role. And no malicious amendment of any subsidiary legislation can take that role away.